Jump to content

Fujinon XF 35mm F1.4 R


dziurek1008

Recommended Posts

Not a pancake at all. Can be less intimidating / more discrete than the f/1.4 tho because the diameter of the glass makes it look less like a SLR lens (that's a concern I have with the 18-55 and 35, if you're in front of people they don't ignore it like they would a harmless 27mm)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

FYI: This lens is intended for rangefinder cameras with optical viewfinder. It is designed in a way that it does not stick into your field of view when looking through the viewfinder. Thus, the strange looking tapering to the front and the slower maximum aperture.

Don't see it as a version II, rather a new and different lens to expand the existing lineup.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI: This lens is intended for rangefinder cameras with optical viewfinder. It is designed in a way that it does not stick into your field of view when looking through the viewfinder. Thus, the strange looking tapering to the front and the slower maximum aperture.

Don't see it as a version II, rather a new and different lens to expand the existing lineup.

I know that this lens is designed not to block the OVF. Which doesn't make sence to me, because there will be only one body with OVF in the market - the X-Pro version 2. And I can't see the logic in making special purpose lens for a single body. I think it is more logical to make a WR version of 35/1.4.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they've already made 2nd version for the cheap zooms. They made new WR zooms with better F stops. Why making WR prime with worse F stops?

If they make WR version, they should make it at 33, which I believe they are working on already.

 

What cheap zooms have they remade?  Other than the 56, I know of no other lenses that are the same focal lengths.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they make WR version, they should make it at 33, which I believe they are working on already.

 

What cheap zooms have they remade?  Other than the 56, I know of no other lenses that are the same focal lengths.

When I said cheap zooms I meant the XC16-50 and XC50-230, which currently both have the version II in the market.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it would be nice if they did a WR version of everything, but I'd imagine getting the imminent new flagship rangefinder x-pro2 a normal prime at launch is a higher priority for obvious reasons.

Really, the worse lens (and F/2 is worse than F/1.4 for me) for a better and new body...doesn't make sence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only looking at the numbers sounds a little narrow-minded to me. f/2 is never necessarily worse than f/1.4.

 

The f/2 offers some things, the f/1.4 does not offer. The f/2 has weather sealing, is said to be optically superior and focuses faster. All in a smaller and lighter package. The f/1.4 offers that faster stop, albeit with downsides.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only looking at the numbers sounds a little narrow-minded to me. f/2 is never necessarily worse than f/1.4.

 

The f/2 offers some things, the f/1.4 does not offer. The f/2 has weather sealing, is said to be optically superior and focuses faster. All in a smaller and lighter package. The f/1.4 offers that faster stop, albeit with downsides.

Of course you can make an optically superior lens at F/2, no doubt. For example, the 60/2.4 is optically better than 35/1.4.

But primes are supposed to be fast in any system (with exception for Sony A7). As for smaller and lighter - there are lenses like 18/2 and 27/2.8. They are light and small already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Primes are supposed to be primes. That's about it when it comes to things that they HAVE to be. There are primes offering a f/5.6 aperture (e.g. 12mm Voigtlander). So what?

 

The 35 f/2 will undoubtedly have its place in the lens system of Fuji. Personally, I see no real reason to update the 35 1.4, after the firmware 4.0 of X-T1 or X-T10. It's fast, accurate and has a tiny bit of magic in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you can make an optically superior lens at F/2, no doubt. For example, the 60/2.4 is optically better than 35/1.4.

But primes are supposed to be fast in any system (with exception for Sony A7). As for smaller and lighter - there are lenses like 18/2 and 27/2.8. They are light and small already.

None of which offer the 50mm focal length.  The target market for this lens is perfect.  It will sell.  I'll be getting one for sure as my 35 ƒ1.4 rarely if ever leaves my camera body, and when it does I always miss it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

None of which offer the 50mm focal length.  The target market for this lens is perfect.  It will sell.  I'll be getting one for sure as my 35 ƒ1.4 rarely if ever leaves my camera body, and when it does I always miss it.

And this is the point I'm trying to tell. 

Making the lens small and light and WR means it won't be cheap, while offering less low-light and DOF capabilities. Of course 35/2 will be selling well, there is no doubt in that. 

But I'll get 35/1.4 anytime over the 35/2. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...